To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention special provision 16.11, ... session of NC General Assembly alternative to commitment programs

Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention special provision 16.11, ... session of NC General Assembly alternative to commitment programs

Special Provision 16.11
2005 Session of NC General Assembly
Alternative to Commitment Programs
May 2008EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is required by Special Provision 16.11 of the 2005 North Carolina General Assembly regarding the implementation of Demonstration Projects to provide alternatives to juvenile commitment services through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. This report focuses on the youth served in the Demonstration Projects in FY 2006-2007. The programs provided by the Demonstration Projects delivered services to youth in Level III disposition (commitment) and youth in Level II disposition (intermediate) who were at risk of a Level III disposition.
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Department) was directed by the 2004 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly to make $500,000 available to Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) to establish community programs for youth who otherwise would be placed in a youth development center. The 2005 General Assembly appropriated an additional $250,000 to expand the Demonstration Projects and to build on this programmatic concept. In FY 2006-2007, the funding allocated by the General Assembly remained at $750,000 for the Demonstration Projects. The Department was approved to carry-forward federal funds from the previous fiscal year identified from the Governor’s Crime Commission in the amount of $161,981. A total of $911,981 was available to support the projects from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.
The grant award process for FY 2006-2007 continued funding for established Demonstration Projects. Awards were made based on the previously funded projects’ outcome data, the services provided to the population identified by this Special Provision, and the state and local support for these projects to continue. Eleven (11) projects were selected for continued funding. The selected projects submitted program agreements to contract with the Department and a county to provide the proposed intermediate and commitment services.
Statewide, the Demonstration Projects delivered somewhat similar intensive case management services that “wrapped services around” the juvenile and family. Typical services included family counseling, individual counseling, tutoring, mentoring, interpersonal skill building, behavior management and cognitive behavior training. Projects coordinated a 24 hour a day, 7 days per week adult supervision plan for each Level III youth. Program providers and court counselors supported and planned for youth as they integrated into the community. The programs also managed referrals to a variety of other community services including such education programs as structured day, after school programming and tutoring. On occasion, court counselors used electronic monitoring as a support for supervision of youth.
Demonstration Project programs served 106 youth during FY 2006-07. During that time period, new admissions totaled 68 and exits from the program totaled 64. Recidivism rates at six and twelve months after termination for youth served in the Demonstration Projects were low. A remarkable number of 55 (86%) youth had no complaints or warrants filed six months after exiting the project and 49 (77%) youth had no complaints or warrants filed twelve months after exiting the project. Of the 64 youth who exited the programs in FY 2006-2007, 43 completed the program meeting the goals of the program with a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals. Only 8 youth required placement in a Youth Development Center while 56 youth continued to live and/or be served in the community.
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc i
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc ii
For FY 2006-2007 the average annual cost (based on actual expenditures) per youth in Demonstration Project programs was $8,578 while the average annual cost per youth in a youth development center was $95,720.
The positive data indicate that the Demonstration Projects continued to be effective and cost-efficient programs that developed and delivered programming for committed youth at the local level while addressing unmet gaps in the continuum of services within the communities.
This report gives information about the funding process for the programs as well as the training and technical assistance provided to the Demonstration Projects by the Department. In response to the legislation, this report also provides a description of the programs, the number of youth served, their adjudication status at the time of service, services and treatments provided, the length of service, the total cost per youth, and the six (6) and twelve (12) month recidivism rates for the youth after the termination of program services.Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Demonstration Projects
Project Background
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was directed by the 2004 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly to make $500,000 available to Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) to establish community programs for youth who otherwise would be placed in a youth development center. The 2005 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly appropriated $250,000 to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to expand the demonstration projects. This legislation required that funded programs provide residential and/or community-based intensive services to juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent and have been given a Level III or Level II disposition or juveniles who are re-entering the community after receiving commitment programming in a youth development center.
By statute, there are three disposition levels for adjudicated youth in North Carolina: Level I, Community Dispositions; Level II, Intermediate Dispositions; and Level III, Commitment. The intent of the 2004 legislation was that programs be established to serve youth who were at either a Level II or Level III disposition.
Funding Process
The 2004 session of the General Assembly directed the Department to develop a competitive process for grant selection. The process was to provide consideration of the history of commitments of a community, of services to youth in rural areas, of services being provided in all geographic areas of North Carolina and collaboration among counties with no project receiving more than $100,000. Demonstration projects contracted with a county and the Department through JCPC program agreements that specified program objectives, services, activities and budgets.
In response to the legislation, the Department developed and executed a process to offer every county and Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) the opportunity to develop a JCPC Demonstration Project. Training, technical assistance, and oversight processes were developed for the selected projects. The Department also established protocols for monitoring project operations to insure that programs serve targeted youth and families and demonstrate desired outcomes.
The Department defines a program structure as a setting, context or framework within which a service is delivered. In reviewing grant applications, the following program structures were prioritized for funding consideration:
•
Community Day Programs - A multi-component, community based, non-residential program structure that provides closely supervised intervention and prevention services;
•
Structured Activities Programs - Programs that offer skill-building activities in a non-residential setting. Programs may offer these skills to juveniles and/or their parents for the purpose of enhancing their personal enrichment, skills or abilities in a particular area:
o
Mentoring
o
Parent/Family Skill Building
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 1
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 2
o
Interpersonal Skill Building
o
Experiential Skill Building
o
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
o
Vocational Development
o
Psycho-education/Supportive Counseling
•
Restorative Programs - Programs that offer immediate and short-term involvement with juveniles to focus on negative and/or offending behaviors with the aim of resolution of the presenting problem and extinction of the behavior.
o
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
o
Restitution
o
Teen Court
•
Clinical Treatment Programs - Programs that offer professional help to a juvenile and/or his or her family to solve problems through goal directed planning. It may include individual, group, family counseling or a combination. It may have a particular focus such as sex offender treatment or substance abuse treatment. Services may be community or home based.
o
Counseling
o
Home Based Family Counseling
o
Crisis Counseling
o
Substance Abuse Treatment
o
Sexual Offender Treatment
•
Residential Treatment Programs - Residential: Programs that offer services in a residential setting.
o
Group Home Care
o
Temporary Shelter Care
o
Runaway Shelter Care
o
Specialized Foster Care
o
Temporary Foster Care
Based on the projects’ outcome data from FY 2005-2006, services provided to the population identified and state and local support for these projects to continue, eleven (11) projects were selected for continued funding for the period beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007. The selected projects submitted program agreements to contract with the Department and a county to provide the proposed intermediate and commitment services.
The Department was approved to carry-forward federal funds from the previous fiscal year identified from the Governor’s Crime Commission in the amount of $161,981. A total of $911,981 was available to support the projects from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 (See Table 1.) Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 3
Table 1
Grant Level Funding
Area of the State
Host County
(Sponsoring Agency)
12 Month Funding
July 2006-
June 2007
Counties
Served
WAYNE
(Methodist Home for Children)
$76,237
Wayne, Lenoir and Greene
DARE
(Dare County Schools)
$15,000
Dare
Eastern
ONSLOW
(Onslow County Youth Services)
$86,828
Onslow
DAVIDSON
(Family Services of
Davidson County Inc.)
$87,250
Davidson
IREDELL
(Exchange SCAN)
$98,979
Iredell, Alexander and Davie
Piedmont
ROCKINGHAM
(Rockingham County
Youth Services.)
$87,250
Rockingham, Stokes, and Surry
ALAMANCE
(Alamance County Dispute Settlement and Youth Services)
$87,250
Alamance
VANCE
(Kerr-Tar Regional
Council of Governments)
$87,250
Vance, Granville, Franklin, Warren, Person, and Caswell
Central
CUMBERLAND
(Cumberland County
CommuniCare, Inc.)
$86,312
Cumberland
CALDWELL
(Meridian Behavioral
Health Services)
$99,625
Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon, Swain, Jackson, Haywood, Polk, Transylvania, Henderson, Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, McDowell, Rutherford, Mitchell, Avery, Watauga, Ashe, Alleghany, Wilkes, Yadkin, Caldwell, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln
Western
BURKE
(Appalachian Family Innovations)
$100,000
Burke, Caldwell and Catawba
Totals
$911,981
51 Counties Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 4
Training and Technical Support for Projects
Because serving Level III youth in a community setting is a relatively new concept in North Carolina, the Department provided considerable training and technical assistance for program providers and community stakeholders to insure that appropriate programs and safety mechanisms were in place in each program. Development of 24-hour plans for providing adult supervision for each youth is a requirement for Level III programming. The Department required monthly client progress reports from program providers. Juvenile Court Counselors, Area Administrators, and Department Clinical Services staff reviewed reports and provided written feedback.
Clinical Services staff and the Demonstration Project Director made site visits to all funded programs to provide on-going training and technical assistance. They also provided training to the Department’s staff and community stakeholders.
Services and Treatments Provided
Through the development of program agreements, the service providers worked to match the services they provided to services that are identified through research to be characteristic of effective services. Statewide, the programs delivered somewhat similar intensive case management services that “wrapped services around” the youth and family. Typical services included family counseling, individual counseling, tutoring, mentoring, interpersonal skill building, behavior management and cognitive behavior training. Projects coordinated a 24 hour a day, 7 days per week adult supervision plan for each Level III youth. Program providers and court counselors supported and planned for youth as they integrated into the community. The programs also managed referrals to a variety of other community services including education programs such as structured day, after school programming and tutoring. On occasion, court counselors used electronic monitoring as a support for supervision of youth.
Table 2 describes the services and treatments provided by the demonstration projects in FY 2006-07. The host county, sponsoring agency, the counties receiving services and the number of youth who could be served at one time (capacity) are identified. Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 5
Table 2
Program Description
Host County
(Sponsoring Agency)
Counties
Served
Services
Provided
(includes 24/7 staff availability)
Capacity
ALAMANCE
(Alamance County Dispute Settlement and Youth Services)
Alamance
Intensive wraparound services including individual and family counseling as well as mentoring and tutoring.
6
BURKE
(Appalachian Family Innovations)
Burke, Caldwell and Catawba
Intensive wraparound in-home services for youths and families
4
CALDWELL
(Meridian Behavioral Health Services)
Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon, Swain, Jackson, Haywood, Polk, Transylvania, Henderson, Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, McDowell, Rutherford, Mitchell, Avery, Watauga, Ashe, Alleghany, Wilkes, Yadkin, Caldwell, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln
Residential placements arranged with intensive wraparound services including drug and alcohol counseling, life skills classes and tutoring.
6
CUMBERLAND
(Cumberland County CommuniCare, Inc.)
Cumberland
Intensive home-based services including individual and family counseling
5
DARE
(Dare County Schools)
Dare
Substance abuse assessments, individual and group counseling, intensive home-based family counseling, substance abuse education and interpersonal skills development
6
DAVIDSON
(Family Services of Davidson County Inc.)
Davidson
Intensive family wraparound services including family and individual counseling
4
IREDELL
(Exchange SCAN)
Iredell, Alexander and Davie
Intensive wraparound services for youths, parenting classes, drug and alcohol counseling, life skills classes, tutoring
4
ONSLOW
(Onslow County Youth Services)
Onslow
Intensive wraparound serviced including residential placement, alternative education activities, life skills groups, family counseling, mentoring and tutoring
6
ROCKINGHAM
(Rockingham County
Youth Services.)
Rockingham, Stokes, and Surry
Intensive home-based counseling and cognitive behavioral group counseling
8
VANCE
(Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments)
Vance, Granville, Franklin, Warren, Person, and Caswell
Intensive wraparound services including home-based family therapy, individual therapy and parenting classes
5
WAYNE
(Methodist Home for Children)
Wayne, Lenoir and Greene
Intensive home-based individual and family therapy
3 Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 6
Adjudication Status
On July 1, 2006 there were 38 youth receiving services in the projects. During FY 2006-2007, 68 youth were admitted. The projects served a total of 106 youth. Table 3 identifies the disposition level for all 106 youth served. Table 4 identifies the adjudication status at the time of admission of the 68 youth.
Table 3
Disposition Level of Youth Served
Level II
Level III
Post-Release Supervision
Total Youth Served
Host County
#
Percent
#
Percent
#
Percent
Alamance
6
60.0%
3
30.0%
1
10.0%
10
Burke
4
66.7%
2
33.3%
0
0.0%
6
Caldwell
8
40.0%
9
45.0%
3
15.0%
20
Cumberland
10
83.3%
2
16.7%
0
0.0%
12
Dare
6
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
6
Davidson
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
0
0.0%
3
Iredell
4
57.1%
3
42.9%
0
0.0%
7
Onslow
4
50.0%
4
50.0%
0
0.0%
8
Rockingham
17
89.5%
1
5.3%
1
5.3%
19
Vance
3
75.0%
1
25.0%
0
0.0%
4
Wayne
1
9.1%
3
27.3%
7
63.6%
11
Total
65
61.3%
29
27.4%
12
11.3%
106
Table 4
Disposition Level of FY 2006-2007 Admissions
Level II
Level III
Post-Release Supervision
Admissions
Host County
#
Percent
#
Percent
#
Percent
Alamance
3
42.9%
3
42.9%
1
14.3%
7
Burke
3
60.0%
2
40.0%
0
0.0%
5
Caldwell
0
0.0%
5
83.3%
1
16.7%
6
Cumberland
7
87.5%
1
12.5%
0
0.0%
8
Dare
3
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
Davidson
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
0
0.0%
1
Iredell
4
66.7%
2
33.3%
0
0.0%
6
Onslow
4
57.1%
3
42.9%
0
0.0%
7
Rockingham
11
84.6%
1
7.7%
1
7.7%
13
Vance
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
0
0.0%
3
Wayne
0
0.0%
3
33.3%
6
66.7%
9
Total
37
54.4%
22
32.4%
9
13.2%
68
Program Data
The following tables provide detailed data of the 11 demonstration projects for FY 2006-07. These tables include the number of youth served, adjudication status at the time of service, average length of service, grant funding level, actual expenditure and total cost per youth. The projects are identified by the host county. Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 7
Program Cost
Table 5 identifies the grant funding level, total youth served and cost per youth for FY 2006-2007. The actual expenditures differ from the grant funding level for eight of the eleven programs. Four programs spent less than the grant funding level, and they returned unused funds to the Department. Another four programs spent more than the grant funding level. The sponsoring agency secured these additional funds from other funding sources.
Table 5
Program Cost
Host County
Grant Level
Actual Expenditure
Total Youth Served
DJJDP Cost per Youth
Total Cost per Youth
Alamance
$87,250
$89,100
10
$8,725
$8,910
Burke
$100,000
$101,135
6
$16,667
$16,856
Caldwell
$99,625
$152,942
20
$4,981
$7,647
Cumberland
$86,312
$82,105
12
$6,842
$6,842
Dare
$15,000
$15,000
6
$2,500
$2,500
Davidson
$87,250
$92,341
3
$29,083
$30,780
Iredell
$98,979
$98,979
7
$14,140
$14,140
Onslow
$86,828
$58,380
8
$7,298
$7,298
Rockingham
$87,250
$80,208
19
$4,221
$4,221
Vance
$87,250
$62,887
4
$15,722
$15,722
Wayne
$76,237
$76,237
11
$6,931
$6,931
$911,981
$909,314
106
$7,999
$8,578
Length of Service
Demonstration Projects continued to serve youth who were high risk and in need of intensive interventions for a considerable length of time. Youth were served by a program for an average length of stay ranging from 85 days to 354 days. The statewide average length of stay was 177 days.
Table 6
Days in Program
Host County
Average Length of Stay
Alamance
166
Burke
104
Caldwell
234
Cumberland
220
Dare
354
Davidson
179
Iredell
119
Onslow
133
Rockingham
170
Vance
187
Wayne
85
Average
177Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 8
Exit from Program
Sixty-four youth exited the projects in FY 2006-2007. Forty-three youth completed their programming at a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals. Program completion was categorized as successful, satisfactory, unsuccessful or non-compliance (See definitions below.).
Successful Completion
Indicates a high level of youth participation in program activities and achievement of behavior improvement goals.
Satisfactory Completion
Indicates an acceptable level of youth participation and behavior improvement even though the youth did not complete all program activities and did not meet all behavior goals.
Unsuccessful Completion
Failure to meet specific goals and requirement or make sufficient progress in the program.
Non-Compliance
Unexcused absences or refusing to participate in treatment activities.
Table 7
Assessment at Exit
Host County
Successful Completion
Satisfactory Completion
Unsuccessful Completion
Non- Compliance
Total
Alamance
2
2
4
8
Burke
1
1
1
3
Caldwell
14
2
1
17
Cumberland
3
2
5
Dare
1
1
1
3
Davidson
2
2
Iredell
1
2
3
Onslow
1
1
2
Rockingham
4
2
3
9
Vance
1
1
1
1
4
Wayne
1
7
8
Total
29
14
15
6
64
Recidivism
The 64 youth who exited the projects during FY 2006-2007 were tracked for recidivism in the juvenile and adult systems and illustrated in Table 8.
Table 8
Recidivism Data for Youth at 6 and 12 Months After Termination
6 Month
Percent
12 Month
Percent
Adult Warrants
6
9.4 %
7
10.9%
Juvenile Complaints
3
4.7%
8
12.5%
No Complaints or Warrants
55
85.9%
49
76.6%
Totals
64
64
Data Sources: North Carolina On-line Information Network (NC-JOIN) and the Department of Correction (DOC) Offender Search Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 9
Summary and Conclusion
Demonstration Projects served high risk youth who were in need of intensive interventions to be successfully served in the community. Without the projects these youth may have been served in a more costly youth development center. Noteworthy outcomes of the projects are:
•
At six and twelve months after exiting the Demonstration Projects, recidivism rates for youth served in the programs were low. Eighty-six percent (86%) had no complaints or warrants filed six months after exiting the project and seventy-seven percent (77%) had no complaints or warrants filed twelve months after exiting the project.
•
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the youth exiting the projects completed their programming at a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals.
•
Of the youth exiting the Demonstration Projects, eighty-eight percent (88%) continued to live and be served in the community with only twelve percent (12%) requiring placement in a youth development center.
•
The average annual cost per youth in the Demonstration Projects in FY 2006-2007 was $8,578 while the average annual cost per youth during the same fiscal year in a youth development center was $95,720.
The positive data indicate that the Demonstration Projects continue to be effective and cost-efficient programs that develop and deliver programming for committed youth at the local level while addressing unmet gaps in the continuum of services within communities.

Special Provision 16.11
2005 Session of NC General Assembly
Alternative to Commitment Programs
May 2008EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is required by Special Provision 16.11 of the 2005 North Carolina General Assembly regarding the implementation of Demonstration Projects to provide alternatives to juvenile commitment services through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. This report focuses on the youth served in the Demonstration Projects in FY 2006-2007. The programs provided by the Demonstration Projects delivered services to youth in Level III disposition (commitment) and youth in Level II disposition (intermediate) who were at risk of a Level III disposition.
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Department) was directed by the 2004 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly to make $500,000 available to Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) to establish community programs for youth who otherwise would be placed in a youth development center. The 2005 General Assembly appropriated an additional $250,000 to expand the Demonstration Projects and to build on this programmatic concept. In FY 2006-2007, the funding allocated by the General Assembly remained at $750,000 for the Demonstration Projects. The Department was approved to carry-forward federal funds from the previous fiscal year identified from the Governor’s Crime Commission in the amount of $161,981. A total of $911,981 was available to support the projects from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007.
The grant award process for FY 2006-2007 continued funding for established Demonstration Projects. Awards were made based on the previously funded projects’ outcome data, the services provided to the population identified by this Special Provision, and the state and local support for these projects to continue. Eleven (11) projects were selected for continued funding. The selected projects submitted program agreements to contract with the Department and a county to provide the proposed intermediate and commitment services.
Statewide, the Demonstration Projects delivered somewhat similar intensive case management services that “wrapped services around” the juvenile and family. Typical services included family counseling, individual counseling, tutoring, mentoring, interpersonal skill building, behavior management and cognitive behavior training. Projects coordinated a 24 hour a day, 7 days per week adult supervision plan for each Level III youth. Program providers and court counselors supported and planned for youth as they integrated into the community. The programs also managed referrals to a variety of other community services including such education programs as structured day, after school programming and tutoring. On occasion, court counselors used electronic monitoring as a support for supervision of youth.
Demonstration Project programs served 106 youth during FY 2006-07. During that time period, new admissions totaled 68 and exits from the program totaled 64. Recidivism rates at six and twelve months after termination for youth served in the Demonstration Projects were low. A remarkable number of 55 (86%) youth had no complaints or warrants filed six months after exiting the project and 49 (77%) youth had no complaints or warrants filed twelve months after exiting the project. Of the 64 youth who exited the programs in FY 2006-2007, 43 completed the program meeting the goals of the program with a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals. Only 8 youth required placement in a Youth Development Center while 56 youth continued to live and/or be served in the community.
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc i
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc ii
For FY 2006-2007 the average annual cost (based on actual expenditures) per youth in Demonstration Project programs was $8,578 while the average annual cost per youth in a youth development center was $95,720.
The positive data indicate that the Demonstration Projects continued to be effective and cost-efficient programs that developed and delivered programming for committed youth at the local level while addressing unmet gaps in the continuum of services within the communities.
This report gives information about the funding process for the programs as well as the training and technical assistance provided to the Demonstration Projects by the Department. In response to the legislation, this report also provides a description of the programs, the number of youth served, their adjudication status at the time of service, services and treatments provided, the length of service, the total cost per youth, and the six (6) and twelve (12) month recidivism rates for the youth after the termination of program services.Juvenile Crime Prevention Council Demonstration Projects
Project Background
The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was directed by the 2004 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly to make $500,000 available to Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils (JCPCs) to establish community programs for youth who otherwise would be placed in a youth development center. The 2005 Session of the North Carolina General Assembly appropriated $250,000 to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to expand the demonstration projects. This legislation required that funded programs provide residential and/or community-based intensive services to juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent and have been given a Level III or Level II disposition or juveniles who are re-entering the community after receiving commitment programming in a youth development center.
By statute, there are three disposition levels for adjudicated youth in North Carolina: Level I, Community Dispositions; Level II, Intermediate Dispositions; and Level III, Commitment. The intent of the 2004 legislation was that programs be established to serve youth who were at either a Level II or Level III disposition.
Funding Process
The 2004 session of the General Assembly directed the Department to develop a competitive process for grant selection. The process was to provide consideration of the history of commitments of a community, of services to youth in rural areas, of services being provided in all geographic areas of North Carolina and collaboration among counties with no project receiving more than $100,000. Demonstration projects contracted with a county and the Department through JCPC program agreements that specified program objectives, services, activities and budgets.
In response to the legislation, the Department developed and executed a process to offer every county and Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) the opportunity to develop a JCPC Demonstration Project. Training, technical assistance, and oversight processes were developed for the selected projects. The Department also established protocols for monitoring project operations to insure that programs serve targeted youth and families and demonstrate desired outcomes.
The Department defines a program structure as a setting, context or framework within which a service is delivered. In reviewing grant applications, the following program structures were prioritized for funding consideration:
•
Community Day Programs - A multi-component, community based, non-residential program structure that provides closely supervised intervention and prevention services;
•
Structured Activities Programs - Programs that offer skill-building activities in a non-residential setting. Programs may offer these skills to juveniles and/or their parents for the purpose of enhancing their personal enrichment, skills or abilities in a particular area:
o
Mentoring
o
Parent/Family Skill Building
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 1
Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 2
o
Interpersonal Skill Building
o
Experiential Skill Building
o
Tutoring/Academic Enhancement
o
Vocational Development
o
Psycho-education/Supportive Counseling
•
Restorative Programs - Programs that offer immediate and short-term involvement with juveniles to focus on negative and/or offending behaviors with the aim of resolution of the presenting problem and extinction of the behavior.
o
Mediation/Conflict Resolution
o
Restitution
o
Teen Court
•
Clinical Treatment Programs - Programs that offer professional help to a juvenile and/or his or her family to solve problems through goal directed planning. It may include individual, group, family counseling or a combination. It may have a particular focus such as sex offender treatment or substance abuse treatment. Services may be community or home based.
o
Counseling
o
Home Based Family Counseling
o
Crisis Counseling
o
Substance Abuse Treatment
o
Sexual Offender Treatment
•
Residential Treatment Programs - Residential: Programs that offer services in a residential setting.
o
Group Home Care
o
Temporary Shelter Care
o
Runaway Shelter Care
o
Specialized Foster Care
o
Temporary Foster Care
Based on the projects’ outcome data from FY 2005-2006, services provided to the population identified and state and local support for these projects to continue, eleven (11) projects were selected for continued funding for the period beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007. The selected projects submitted program agreements to contract with the Department and a county to provide the proposed intermediate and commitment services.
The Department was approved to carry-forward federal funds from the previous fiscal year identified from the Governor’s Crime Commission in the amount of $161,981. A total of $911,981 was available to support the projects from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 (See Table 1.) Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 3
Table 1
Grant Level Funding
Area of the State
Host County
(Sponsoring Agency)
12 Month Funding
July 2006-
June 2007
Counties
Served
WAYNE
(Methodist Home for Children)
$76,237
Wayne, Lenoir and Greene
DARE
(Dare County Schools)
$15,000
Dare
Eastern
ONSLOW
(Onslow County Youth Services)
$86,828
Onslow
DAVIDSON
(Family Services of
Davidson County Inc.)
$87,250
Davidson
IREDELL
(Exchange SCAN)
$98,979
Iredell, Alexander and Davie
Piedmont
ROCKINGHAM
(Rockingham County
Youth Services.)
$87,250
Rockingham, Stokes, and Surry
ALAMANCE
(Alamance County Dispute Settlement and Youth Services)
$87,250
Alamance
VANCE
(Kerr-Tar Regional
Council of Governments)
$87,250
Vance, Granville, Franklin, Warren, Person, and Caswell
Central
CUMBERLAND
(Cumberland County
CommuniCare, Inc.)
$86,312
Cumberland
CALDWELL
(Meridian Behavioral
Health Services)
$99,625
Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon, Swain, Jackson, Haywood, Polk, Transylvania, Henderson, Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, McDowell, Rutherford, Mitchell, Avery, Watauga, Ashe, Alleghany, Wilkes, Yadkin, Caldwell, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln
Western
BURKE
(Appalachian Family Innovations)
$100,000
Burke, Caldwell and Catawba
Totals
$911,981
51 Counties Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 4
Training and Technical Support for Projects
Because serving Level III youth in a community setting is a relatively new concept in North Carolina, the Department provided considerable training and technical assistance for program providers and community stakeholders to insure that appropriate programs and safety mechanisms were in place in each program. Development of 24-hour plans for providing adult supervision for each youth is a requirement for Level III programming. The Department required monthly client progress reports from program providers. Juvenile Court Counselors, Area Administrators, and Department Clinical Services staff reviewed reports and provided written feedback.
Clinical Services staff and the Demonstration Project Director made site visits to all funded programs to provide on-going training and technical assistance. They also provided training to the Department’s staff and community stakeholders.
Services and Treatments Provided
Through the development of program agreements, the service providers worked to match the services they provided to services that are identified through research to be characteristic of effective services. Statewide, the programs delivered somewhat similar intensive case management services that “wrapped services around” the youth and family. Typical services included family counseling, individual counseling, tutoring, mentoring, interpersonal skill building, behavior management and cognitive behavior training. Projects coordinated a 24 hour a day, 7 days per week adult supervision plan for each Level III youth. Program providers and court counselors supported and planned for youth as they integrated into the community. The programs also managed referrals to a variety of other community services including education programs such as structured day, after school programming and tutoring. On occasion, court counselors used electronic monitoring as a support for supervision of youth.
Table 2 describes the services and treatments provided by the demonstration projects in FY 2006-07. The host county, sponsoring agency, the counties receiving services and the number of youth who could be served at one time (capacity) are identified. Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 5
Table 2
Program Description
Host County
(Sponsoring Agency)
Counties
Served
Services
Provided
(includes 24/7 staff availability)
Capacity
ALAMANCE
(Alamance County Dispute Settlement and Youth Services)
Alamance
Intensive wraparound services including individual and family counseling as well as mentoring and tutoring.
6
BURKE
(Appalachian Family Innovations)
Burke, Caldwell and Catawba
Intensive wraparound in-home services for youths and families
4
CALDWELL
(Meridian Behavioral Health Services)
Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon, Swain, Jackson, Haywood, Polk, Transylvania, Henderson, Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, McDowell, Rutherford, Mitchell, Avery, Watauga, Ashe, Alleghany, Wilkes, Yadkin, Caldwell, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Cleveland, and Lincoln
Residential placements arranged with intensive wraparound services including drug and alcohol counseling, life skills classes and tutoring.
6
CUMBERLAND
(Cumberland County CommuniCare, Inc.)
Cumberland
Intensive home-based services including individual and family counseling
5
DARE
(Dare County Schools)
Dare
Substance abuse assessments, individual and group counseling, intensive home-based family counseling, substance abuse education and interpersonal skills development
6
DAVIDSON
(Family Services of Davidson County Inc.)
Davidson
Intensive family wraparound services including family and individual counseling
4
IREDELL
(Exchange SCAN)
Iredell, Alexander and Davie
Intensive wraparound services for youths, parenting classes, drug and alcohol counseling, life skills classes, tutoring
4
ONSLOW
(Onslow County Youth Services)
Onslow
Intensive wraparound serviced including residential placement, alternative education activities, life skills groups, family counseling, mentoring and tutoring
6
ROCKINGHAM
(Rockingham County
Youth Services.)
Rockingham, Stokes, and Surry
Intensive home-based counseling and cognitive behavioral group counseling
8
VANCE
(Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments)
Vance, Granville, Franklin, Warren, Person, and Caswell
Intensive wraparound services including home-based family therapy, individual therapy and parenting classes
5
WAYNE
(Methodist Home for Children)
Wayne, Lenoir and Greene
Intensive home-based individual and family therapy
3 Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 6
Adjudication Status
On July 1, 2006 there were 38 youth receiving services in the projects. During FY 2006-2007, 68 youth were admitted. The projects served a total of 106 youth. Table 3 identifies the disposition level for all 106 youth served. Table 4 identifies the adjudication status at the time of admission of the 68 youth.
Table 3
Disposition Level of Youth Served
Level II
Level III
Post-Release Supervision
Total Youth Served
Host County
#
Percent
#
Percent
#
Percent
Alamance
6
60.0%
3
30.0%
1
10.0%
10
Burke
4
66.7%
2
33.3%
0
0.0%
6
Caldwell
8
40.0%
9
45.0%
3
15.0%
20
Cumberland
10
83.3%
2
16.7%
0
0.0%
12
Dare
6
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
6
Davidson
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
0
0.0%
3
Iredell
4
57.1%
3
42.9%
0
0.0%
7
Onslow
4
50.0%
4
50.0%
0
0.0%
8
Rockingham
17
89.5%
1
5.3%
1
5.3%
19
Vance
3
75.0%
1
25.0%
0
0.0%
4
Wayne
1
9.1%
3
27.3%
7
63.6%
11
Total
65
61.3%
29
27.4%
12
11.3%
106
Table 4
Disposition Level of FY 2006-2007 Admissions
Level II
Level III
Post-Release Supervision
Admissions
Host County
#
Percent
#
Percent
#
Percent
Alamance
3
42.9%
3
42.9%
1
14.3%
7
Burke
3
60.0%
2
40.0%
0
0.0%
5
Caldwell
0
0.0%
5
83.3%
1
16.7%
6
Cumberland
7
87.5%
1
12.5%
0
0.0%
8
Dare
3
100.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
3
Davidson
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
0
0.0%
1
Iredell
4
66.7%
2
33.3%
0
0.0%
6
Onslow
4
57.1%
3
42.9%
0
0.0%
7
Rockingham
11
84.6%
1
7.7%
1
7.7%
13
Vance
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
0
0.0%
3
Wayne
0
0.0%
3
33.3%
6
66.7%
9
Total
37
54.4%
22
32.4%
9
13.2%
68
Program Data
The following tables provide detailed data of the 11 demonstration projects for FY 2006-07. These tables include the number of youth served, adjudication status at the time of service, average length of service, grant funding level, actual expenditure and total cost per youth. The projects are identified by the host county. Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 7
Program Cost
Table 5 identifies the grant funding level, total youth served and cost per youth for FY 2006-2007. The actual expenditures differ from the grant funding level for eight of the eleven programs. Four programs spent less than the grant funding level, and they returned unused funds to the Department. Another four programs spent more than the grant funding level. The sponsoring agency secured these additional funds from other funding sources.
Table 5
Program Cost
Host County
Grant Level
Actual Expenditure
Total Youth Served
DJJDP Cost per Youth
Total Cost per Youth
Alamance
$87,250
$89,100
10
$8,725
$8,910
Burke
$100,000
$101,135
6
$16,667
$16,856
Caldwell
$99,625
$152,942
20
$4,981
$7,647
Cumberland
$86,312
$82,105
12
$6,842
$6,842
Dare
$15,000
$15,000
6
$2,500
$2,500
Davidson
$87,250
$92,341
3
$29,083
$30,780
Iredell
$98,979
$98,979
7
$14,140
$14,140
Onslow
$86,828
$58,380
8
$7,298
$7,298
Rockingham
$87,250
$80,208
19
$4,221
$4,221
Vance
$87,250
$62,887
4
$15,722
$15,722
Wayne
$76,237
$76,237
11
$6,931
$6,931
$911,981
$909,314
106
$7,999
$8,578
Length of Service
Demonstration Projects continued to serve youth who were high risk and in need of intensive interventions for a considerable length of time. Youth were served by a program for an average length of stay ranging from 85 days to 354 days. The statewide average length of stay was 177 days.
Table 6
Days in Program
Host County
Average Length of Stay
Alamance
166
Burke
104
Caldwell
234
Cumberland
220
Dare
354
Davidson
179
Iredell
119
Onslow
133
Rockingham
170
Vance
187
Wayne
85
Average
177Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 8
Exit from Program
Sixty-four youth exited the projects in FY 2006-2007. Forty-three youth completed their programming at a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals. Program completion was categorized as successful, satisfactory, unsuccessful or non-compliance (See definitions below.).
Successful Completion
Indicates a high level of youth participation in program activities and achievement of behavior improvement goals.
Satisfactory Completion
Indicates an acceptable level of youth participation and behavior improvement even though the youth did not complete all program activities and did not meet all behavior goals.
Unsuccessful Completion
Failure to meet specific goals and requirement or make sufficient progress in the program.
Non-Compliance
Unexcused absences or refusing to participate in treatment activities.
Table 7
Assessment at Exit
Host County
Successful Completion
Satisfactory Completion
Unsuccessful Completion
Non- Compliance
Total
Alamance
2
2
4
8
Burke
1
1
1
3
Caldwell
14
2
1
17
Cumberland
3
2
5
Dare
1
1
1
3
Davidson
2
2
Iredell
1
2
3
Onslow
1
1
2
Rockingham
4
2
3
9
Vance
1
1
1
1
4
Wayne
1
7
8
Total
29
14
15
6
64
Recidivism
The 64 youth who exited the projects during FY 2006-2007 were tracked for recidivism in the juvenile and adult systems and illustrated in Table 8.
Table 8
Recidivism Data for Youth at 6 and 12 Months After Termination
6 Month
Percent
12 Month
Percent
Adult Warrants
6
9.4 %
7
10.9%
Juvenile Complaints
3
4.7%
8
12.5%
No Complaints or Warrants
55
85.9%
49
76.6%
Totals
64
64
Data Sources: North Carolina On-line Information Network (NC-JOIN) and the Department of Correction (DOC) Offender Search Alternative to Commitment Legislative Report 2008 0603.doc 9
Summary and Conclusion
Demonstration Projects served high risk youth who were in need of intensive interventions to be successfully served in the community. Without the projects these youth may have been served in a more costly youth development center. Noteworthy outcomes of the projects are:
•
At six and twelve months after exiting the Demonstration Projects, recidivism rates for youth served in the programs were low. Eighty-six percent (86%) had no complaints or warrants filed six months after exiting the project and seventy-seven percent (77%) had no complaints or warrants filed twelve months after exiting the project.
•
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the youth exiting the projects completed their programming at a high or acceptable level of participation and achievement of behavior improvement goals.
•
Of the youth exiting the Demonstration Projects, eighty-eight percent (88%) continued to live and be served in the community with only twelve percent (12%) requiring placement in a youth development center.
•
The average annual cost per youth in the Demonstration Projects in FY 2006-2007 was $8,578 while the average annual cost per youth during the same fiscal year in a youth development center was $95,720.
The positive data indicate that the Demonstration Projects continue to be effective and cost-efficient programs that develop and deliver programming for committed youth at the local level while addressing unmet gaps in the continuum of services within communities.